P K Mani vs Alexander K A — 100027/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section XXLI. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

AS - CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: KLKT010006052024

e-Filing Number

12-02-2024

Filing Number

100188/2024

Filing Date

13-Feb-2024

Registration No

100027/2024

Registration Date

13-Feb-2024

Court

Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section XXLI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.P K Mani

    Adv. JAYAKRISHNAN R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Alexander K A

  2. 2.Madhu C G

  3. 3.K Y Thomas @ Babu

  4. 4.Shaji P M

  5. 5.Suja Shaji

  6. 6.Tomy Chacko

  7. 7.Shajeendran

  8. 8.Reji

  9. 9.Ginu

  10. 10.Sadasivan Nair

  11. 11.Swami Vivenkanda Cultural Society

  12. 12.Thirukeralpurathu Devaswam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: P K Mani v. Alexander K A and Others (Case 100027/2024) Court's Decision The Principal District Judge dismissed P K Mani's appeal against the execution of a compromise decree involving temple property. The court held that Order XXI Rule 97 CPC—which governs obstruction to possession in decree execution—does not apply to easement decrees, only to possession decrees. Since the original decree granted easement rights (not possession), the obstruction petition was not maintainable. Key Reasoning The court emphasized that because easement rights do not involve possessory claims, the petitioner could not challenge decree execution under procedural obstruction rules. Additionally, the court noted that matters regarding decree validity and representative capacity had already been determined under Section 47 CPC and were pending appellate review, making re-litigation inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  4. 31-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  5. 21-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    For Further Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  8. 28-Feb-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  9. 13-Feb-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  10. 15-Jan-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  11. 16-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  12. 26-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  13. 10-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  14. 30-Oct-2025

    Call On

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  15. 22-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  16. 07-Oct-2025

    For Further Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  17. 04-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  18. 26-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  19. 16-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  20. 13-Aug-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  21. 18-Jul-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  22. 05-Jul-2025

    For Reports

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  23. 01-Jul-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  24. 07-Jun-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  25. 08-Apr-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  26. 19-Mar-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  27. 10-Mar-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  28. 28-Feb-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  29. 12-Feb-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  30. 13-Jan-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  31. 10-Dec-2024

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  32. 22-Oct-2024

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  33. 27-Aug-2024

    Call On

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  34. 26-Jul-2024

    Call On

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  35. 06-Jul-2024

    For Objection

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  36. 05-Jun-2024

    Call On

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  37. 18-May-2024

    For Objection

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  38. 12-Mar-2024

    For Objection

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  39. 17-Feb-2024

    OrderView PDF

  40. 17-Feb-2024

    OrderView PDF

  41. 17-Feb-2024

    Return of Notice

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  42. 14-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  43. 13-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100027/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: P K Mani v. Alexander K A and Others (Case 100027/2024) Court's Decision The Principal District Judge dismissed P K Mani's appeal against the execution of a compromise decree involving temple property. The court held that Order XXI Rule 97 CPC—which governs obstruction to possession in decree execution—does not apply to easement decrees, only to possession decrees. Since the original decree granted easement rights (not possession), the obstruction petition was not maintainable. Key Reasoning The court emphasized that because easement rights do not involve possessory claims, the petitioner could not challenge decree execution under procedural obstruction rules. Additionally, the court noted that matters regarding decree validity and representative capacity had already been determined under Section 47 CPC and were pending appellate review, making re-litigation inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case